LaFonte: Reading many of the comments I got finally completely confused. There are totally contradictory statements which shows that we (as a group) actually don't have any idea how sensor technology works. If this was a class it would be a big fail for the teacher.DPreview, maybe it would be a good idea for a future article by some expert with down to earth way of style to explain how imaging sensor works, how the electrons bounce and what not, how the ISO is calculated, what is the cause of ISO noise etc... Someone who is not a forum poster with expensive words please so we can actually understand.
Well duh, I assume everyone knows those basics. But how about to dig deep, how photon excites the well, how the well size affect effectivity, a crosstalk between pixels wen electrons jump and all that bananas.
How does it relate to the WB set in your camera? I assume if you going with a calibration you don't use AWB, right? or it will mess up the whole thing. So you set your WB to say daylight, shoot the target and then stick with the daylight WB no matter what? I really want to know.
Reading many of the comments I got finally completely confused. There are totally contradictory statements which shows that we (as a group) actually don't have any idea how sensor technology works. If this was a class it would be a big fail for the teacher.DPreview, maybe it would be a good idea for a future article by some expert with down to earth way of style to explain how imaging sensor works, how the electrons bounce and what not, how the ISO is calculated, what is the cause of ISO noise etc... Someone who is not a forum poster with expensive words please so we can actually understand.
nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.
You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.
The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.
"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.
"You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor...""Yes, you will."Such statement is exactly why this topic is such a mess. Me personally I have absolutely no idea why masking part of the sensors wells would then magically increase noise in all the unmasked wells. Absolutely no idea. Somebody is just pulling my teeth here with all the contradictions.There is for sure a definitive answer to all these statements, unless we of course start talking about light as a wave and then we will never finish.So where is the definitive expert capacity on this topic to put all this mess into order.
Those are really something!
I thing the guy behind it must be a marketing genius to get so much venture capital behind him. Some nifty way of persuasion. Seems they got even more capital that Sigma could scram for foevon. In our local store they have one open box lytro camera for more than a year... nobody really wants it, yet the money keep raining in! He is a genius for sure.
"Thanks to the FZ1000's silent mode, this Seattle PD officer had no idea that I was taking his photo."Now he has. Wait for the call...
OliverNZ: Hi all,
Well, had a play with one yesterday. Nice bright sharp view finder and the 400mm eq lens is pretty good. But, not nearly as tactile for manual shooting as the RX10. It was no where near as easy to use as appeture was hard to find. The build quality is not as good as the RX10. The Panasonic is lighter tho not by much.
To me, the RX10 feels like a better quality machine. This follows with my many years of dealing with Sony product in my jobs in TV dealing with their professional equipment and my personal equipment. Sony stuff usually costs a little more but it is usually just that bit better.
Since their customer service both stinks, it comes down to what is good and works right now. Yeah sony always butters our noses with premium materials.
As expected the real life images are pretty good. I think we are in the area when there isn't a single "bad" camera any more. Whatever you get takes great images. Oh I miss the times when you could clearly choose winners.
munro harrap: I think it is better to await a full review with timings battery life and actual files you can download (from Sigma?) before lending them a thousand dollars!!!They can make an absolute fortune this way investing your loan to them- and it costs them not a penny.
I had a DP2M. Great lens, very nice, but an hours battery life is a joke. Yes with its tiny shutter lag and fast AF it should have taken on and beaten the Nex7.
Here again you are forced to buy three cameras rather than one camera and three lenses, AND you have to buy three separate viewfinders as well, because if the hi-resw screen is as wobbly as the DP1,2, and 3s were, it is useless except for tripod mounted stills.
You can buy a NEX and those same lenses for it and no more worries!!! And no more loans to Sigma. The lenses are just fine on a NEX, bar the 19mm (DP1) which is only OKish stopped well down.No better than the Nex kit lens... check DXO if disbelieving...
Man you must be hiding under the rock when you think you can make absolute fortune on a short term loans these days! Hahaha...The fact is that many camera stores do not even offer sigma because they fear of high percentage of returns on low selling item.This loan is to simply go around the dealers blockage with easy return policy and I guess it will cost sigma a lot of money in logistics - hence I don't think this deal will last too long. Soon you will hear, sorry we no longer accept the loan.
andrzej bialuski: Has anyone here ordered this Test Camera?
I did 2 days ago and got an order confirmation from Sigma, but no shipping date. nor a way to check status of my order.Is your experience similar to mine?Did Sigma sent you a link to check your order online?
My bet would be that there were thousands like you and the logistic went poof. Many times companies that do not sell directly don't prepare for the real world of shipping and returning.
The ISO 100 is a total blast, but it goes downhill so fast after that! As an amateur I can't stay with ISO 100 for my normal shooting and the higher ISO noise defeats the purpose of a special sensor.
plasnu: Finally, the mirrorless cameras have become popular in US and Euro. According to CIPA, between Jan-May 2014
The shipment of Mirrorless +38%The shipment of DSLR -13%The shipment of Compact -40%
The cellphone workflow far outshines the small compact cameras. Take picture, quick adjustment, send it to your mom. Soon or later bigger cameras will have to compete with that workflow, the current wifi features are abysmal at best.
caravan: Great Price,too bad it has a tiny sensor,articulating LCD,touch screen,and zoom lens.
It is not tiny, but neither as good as the sony 1". The Pentax Q was tiny sensor and the price wasn't that far from N1.
forpetessake: There has been more than 1000 comments so far. What can be learned from them?
1) Many people don't read, at least don't engage their minds while reading, but nevertheless they are quick to reply. They don't read the replies to their replies either, or unable to comprehend them, because they keep repeating the same fallacies again and again.2) Many people have difficulty understanding simple laws of physics and elementary school arithmetic. It's really shameful state of affairs. Blame expensive government schools for that.3) the previous 2 problems are exacerbated by a "choice-supportive bias" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias). Notice that most (if not all) of the objections are coming from the people with small sensors (m4/3, 1").
Now, the really ugly thing is that most of those people are your average voters. I shudder thinking people with such cognitive faculties go to the voting booths.
It is all upside down.I am thankful for the article that spells the relation of different parameters and it can be printed and used when one actually needs it.The comments, that is a different story.
@ mostlyboringphotog: As for the equivalent FL, I read many comments and I don't think there is a single one that would have trouble to understand what the article explained about FL. I think most people (and me) had problem about the second part and that is "equivalent exposure" and most notably why do we should care. Because the F number works fine. Why do we need to recalculate it to equivalent aperture? We don't. F number is not broken. It is only when you want badly to match DOF of two different cameras with different sensor size.
I didn't read a single comment that would claim that small sensors are better or equal to a bigger sensors of the same or similar number of pixels. Or what else you mean by objections? Objections to what? To the article? The article math and statements are fine.
But for some reason this thread is full of comments asserting that photographers with 1" sensors absolutely for some weird reason think that their sensor must be better or equal much larger sensors. (like you mentioned in your 3) But where are those people?
But still, in general, larger the pixel sizes, the higher efficiency, the more data for the a/d to bump up the ISO = less high ISO noise, no? Irrelevant of how big is the whole sensor. Could be tiny sensor with few pixels or huge sensor with much more pixels of the same size. Noise would be the same.
LaFonte: To put more fuel to the fire, I think the article explained perfectly the first part"what is the equivalence" but failed to explain the second part "why should I care"Maybe a page 5 is needed with a real life situation for a photographer in the field with his camera, not a nerd in a lab with 4 different cameras taking picture of a single subject and comparing how they differ. I kind of don't use cameras like that and I don't think many photographers do that either.
So I am standing knee deep in a mud somewhere outside with my camera pointing at something. What should I take from the article that would help me take better picture. How does it relate to me and indeed why should I care about anything that was said (assuming of course I am not complete idiot and I understand that higher ISO means higher noise)
That's pretty level headed practical info Mr. Bustard the Great. At least someone here understand this whole can of worms.
What he is saying is that noise relates to the size of the photo wells, and what you are saying is that noise relates to the size of the sensor. I stand with the former.
Aha, so this would help me to buy more gear!Still the author should expand the article how to apply this theoretical knowledge in real life.